Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

I was actually impressed that Cindy Crawford seemed kind of smart....At least compared to the other celebs this season. She could be a total dolt, who knows? But compared to O'Donnell and Clarkson, she came off like a rocket-surgeon.

I really liked the episode, mostly because they covered multiple generations. THAT's what this core audience wants to see. It thought it was really great how they traced her pedigree lineage to Charlemagne, but not because she was connected to a famous historical ruler, but simply because they could connect her to ANYONE in the 8th century. I have no desire to find royal ancestors--I'd be thrilled if someone could connect me to some peasants in the 8th century! I'd love to be able to go back that far.

Note: I'm sure the show did not want to slant politically or religiously. And besides, the Catholics and Catholic rulers committed just as many atrocities, so let's be fair.

The Irish were innocently living their lives in their own country not doing anything to anyone when the Puritans took it upon themselves to burn down villages and mercilessly slaughter men, women and children.

No doubt it wouldn't have. She should read up on it. They did say that the Puritans wanted to come to a place where they could make the rules. I don't think she has a clue how completely controlling they were and how she wouldn't be doing her job in a purtian world. It did stress that people were much more constrained then over now. It is interesting the ancestor dumped his kids and went to England and home town to find a suitable wife... Likely there were far less women over all in America.

Strikes me as weird, also, that this "good Christian" man would abandon his children.

One thing about Puritans is they would only marry other Puritans. That's why the Puritan part of my family is nothing but English Puritan.

The librarian or whatever she was said that servant women wouldn't have been considered as a potential wife because they were in an inappropriate "category." She did not mention that category might have been as a slave. Puritans had slaves even as far back as the 1600s as household servants.

Strikes me as weird, also, that this "good Christian" man would abandon his children.

One thing about Puritans is they would only marry other Puritans. That's why the Puritan part of my family is nothing but English Puritan.

The librarian or whatever she was said that servant women wouldn't have been considered as a potential wife because they were in an inappropriate "category." She did not mention that category might have been as a slave. Puritans had slaves even as far back as the 1600s as household servants.

They also had servants who were treated the same, under indentures. I think that is what she was refering to as their 'catagory'. At that time you got here by either paying your voyage or paying in servitude. Especially for a 'respectable puritan a freed servant would be completely unacceptable. Considering the time it is reasonable he had to go back to England to find a qualified wife. Dumping the kids though, some good christan. I hope they grew up all right.

There was something rather condescending about the woman's attitude too.

They also had servants who were treated the same, under indentures. I think that is what she was refering to as their 'catagory'. At that time you got here by either paying your voyage or paying in servitude. Especially for a 'respectable puritan a freed servant would be completely unacceptable. Considering the time it is reasonable he had to go back to England to find a qualified wife. Dumping the kids though, some good christan. I hope they grew up all right.

There was something rather condescending about the woman's attitude too.

I didn't detect condescension from the librarian. But, yes, could be an indentured servant issue. If one was freed and joined the Congregationalist church, she might have been considered marriageable. Or so it seems. My Puritan ancestors were listed under Freemen of (Whatever town) they were living in. So there definitely was a difference between freemen and others. After being slave, or indentured or in the army or navy, not sure how else someone could be bound to another and therefore not free.

I didn't detect condescension from the librarian. But, yes, could be an indentured servant issue. If one was freed and joined the Congregationalist church, she might have been considered marriageable. Or so it seems. My Puritan ancestors were listed under Freemen of (Whatever town) they were living in. So there definitely was a difference between freemen and others. After being slave, or indentured or in the army or navy, not sure how else someone could be bound to another and therefore not free.

I think it was maybe an unwarrented assumption that she knew why, since those who are very familiar with details as she would be don't quite get that many don't. Or it could be a bit of surviving modern day smallish area class distinction. Maybe today someone from the bottom wouldn't be welcome either?

Those who had good skills and could read were often signed for before the ship left. And they had means to buy into society upon being freed. Often they did have success in finding acceptance. I would guess a woman like that might be seen as acceptable if they joined the church. But many of those swept up were poor and knew only survival and were suspect about being thieves. Long before it was officially all right to move into the Tennessee/W Virginia/Kentucky area, many slipped in anyway as it was a place they could make their own.

Even with the influx of shipped in labor, there was a cronic shortage of women.

The one with Cindy Crawford was quite interesting. I liked it. There is much more geneology in this one. I do wonder how many people can call Charlemaine an ancestor though.

The bit they showed from next week is indeed very interesting. That is a transportation sentence and convict labor. I will be interesting how much they go into this.

We can! My sister has been doing our genealogy for several years and has pretty much gotten as far as she could (she's now working on all the in-laws). She loves this show and watched it last week and was amazed to hear them naming Cindy Crawford's ancestors because they were names she already knew from our family tree.

She took notes and went back and looked. Cindy Crawford is apparently our sixth cousin once removed. Wonder if we should invite her over for Thanksgiving.

We can! My sister has been doing our genealogy for several years and has pretty much gotten as far as she could (she's now working on all the in-laws). She loves this show and watched it last week and was amazed to hear them naming Cindy Crawford's ancestors because they were names she already knew from our family tree.

She took notes and went back and looked. Cindy Crawford is apparently our sixth cousin once removed. Wonder if we should invite her over for Thanksgiving.

Sure. You know how in genealogy we call every relative "cousin." Cousin Cindy.

__________________my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.

Very interesting show tonight. The flip side of Charlemaine. I'll have to rewatch and take a few notes too. Now, my convict ancestor came in 1719. He didn't get to run away. Being in the first convict shipment, they probably got watched close. But I've seen refs to Green county GA on dad's side in that era. I'll have to check out the dates.

It was interesting to see a story so close to my ancestor's. I wonder if any of hers knew any of mine.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.